Freedom of expression in the new age of genocide
JVL Introduction
Martin Shaw is perhaps Britain’s foremost genocide scholar today.
This talk, “Freedom of Expression in a Time of Genocide”, accompanies the publication of his recent book The New Age of Genocide.
In the talk Shaw stresses that genocide is not just about actions of deliberate destruction but also involves a conflict between the perpetrators and their supporters and whose who speak up for the victims.
It centres around different types of denial.
Drawing on Stan Cohen’s States of Denial, he looks at the widespread refusal to acknowledge Israel’s campaign against the whole of Gaza’s society as “genocide” – until recently.
Now, Shaw affirms: “We are in a new, even more pernicious stage of denial, in which the same people who said the genocide never happened are now telling us that it is over.”
This is the stage of implicatory denial: people know, people even acknowledge it has happened. But they refuse to follow through on its implication viz the need to act.
That would involve real pressure, a serious boycott of Israel. And that, the West and its mainstream media, still aren’t allowing on to the agenda.
RK
This article was originally published by Martin Shaw's blog on Thu 13 Nov 2025. Read the original here.
Freedom of expression in the new age of genocide
Talk at the symposium, “Freedom of Expression in a Time of Genocide”, at Stavanger, Norway, 12 November.
Loading article text…
Indeed. Where was the coverage of this important speech in the mainstream media? Why hasn’t the writer, a man of considerable experience, expertise and authority on genocide, been invited to share his views on the BBC or supposedly left liberal papers like the Guardian? He is absolutely right that the establishment has closed ranks to deny Palestinians the media coverage they merit. A timely and perceptive article that deserves wider readership.
Disturbing but unsurprising that Shaw has never once been asked to speak on UK mainsream media. For many years it’s been clear that control of the public conversation has been exerted as much by omission as by focusing on the wrong ‘talking points’.